Are rough Romaji spellings "True To The Original"

[dbboxkaifan]

I can give you a similar concrete historical example. For example, in the USA, they named the famous portuguese explorer Fernão de Magalhães as "Ferdinand Magellan". Probably because its easier to pronounce that way. I'm portuguese so, why should I call him "Ferdinand Magellan" instead of Fernão de Magalhães? What possible sense could there be in me, a portuguese user, in using a foreign pronunciation of his name, instead of his original portuguese name? Using Bejita instead of Vegeta or Seru instead of Cell is similar to that.

That's an odd translation of a name, it's not even like Miguel to Michael or João to John they literally made it seem like a different person altogether.

"Fernando" would've been closer than "Ferdinand" but "Magellan" that's just weird as they could have left it untouched though without the accents on the letters as "Magalaes" (Maga-leis), this way it'd still be accurate to the original name. Apparently it's pronounced Ma-je-lun, meh.

The language Castellano translated to English is Castillan which is faithful to the original idiom so in this case they did a fine job but I still prefer to call it by its original term.

/ot

[rereboy]

Like I said, it's personal preference. If someone wants to use the romanization of the Japanese names, it's not "wrong" for them to do so. It may not make sense to you, but you are not the one who is deciding to do it. Maybe they like the romanized pronouciations better? Maybe they feel that a direct transliteration is more accurate to the original? Especially when official translations give us names like "Hercule," "Tien," "Vegerot," and "Sangoku," what's wrong with sticking to a more or less consistent method of naming the characters that is just a literal, direct translation of the original names?

Like I've said repeatedly, I don't do it myself, but I'm not going to berate anyone else for doing so, nor will I approve of anyone else doing so, which is why I'm bothering to respond to this in the first place. No one is doing anything wrong here; your's, or anyone elses personal feelings in the matter, shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's "right" or not.

And like I said, its not "factually wrong", but I fail to see why you are agaisnt someone contesting it with reasonable arguments to argue that its incorrect/wrong and why someone has to be on a pedestal to do it.

As long as no one is a "dick" and no one tries to argue that there's no subjectivity to it, that just means that its a proper discussion about it with people offering their view on it and on what's correct and incorrect.

Having a degree of subjectivity just means that there won't be a definite answer, not that someone can't argue why he believes a certain position isn't correct.

[Kamiccolo9]

Like I said, it's personal preference. If someone wants to use the romanization of the Japanese names, it's not "wrong" for them to do so. It may not make sense to you, but you are not the one who is deciding to do it. Maybe they like the romanized pronouciations better? Maybe they feel that a direct transliteration is more accurate to the original? Especially when official translations give us names like "Hercule," "Tien," "Vegerot," and "Sangoku," what's wrong with sticking to a more or less consistent method of naming the characters that is just a literal, direct translation of the original names?

Like I've said repeatedly, I don't do it myself, but I'm not going to berate anyone else for doing so, nor will I approve of anyone else doing so, which is why I'm bothering to respond to this in the first place. No one is doing anything wrong here; your's, or anyone elses personal feelings in the matter, shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's "right" or not.

And like I said, its not "factually wrong", but I fail to see why you are agaisnt someone contesting it with reasonable arguments to argue that its incorrect/wrong and why someone has to be on a pedestal to do it.

As long as no one is a "dick" and no one tries to argue that there's no subjectivity to it, that just means that its a proper discussion about it with people offering their view on it and on what's correct and incorrect.

Having a degree of subjectivity just means that there won't be a definite answer, not that someone can't argue why he believes a certain position isn't correct. As long as no one is a "dick" and one tries to argue that there's no subjectivity to it,

Because any arguments against it come down to personal preference, which is a pointless thing to argue about. For the most part, nobody is going to change their minds, and, since nobody is factually wrong, why waste the time and effort trying to change somebody's opinion, when that opinion is decided by purely subjective standards?

"Correct" and "incorrect" have no bearing here, since, as you have noted, nobody is factually wrong. This all comes down to personal preference. I tend to side with your reasoning for why not using direct romanizations of names, but there is nothing wrong with anyone doing just that.

[Cetra]

I dont get you. Thats more my fault than yours but I would love for you to elaborate some more.

Are you saying its good or bad? Right or Wrong? What do you mean by that?

I am saying whatever reflects the intention is good. If someone can figure out what and which word was meant and how it was meant to be pronounced then everything is fine. However we focus too much on being so nitpicky anyway. I personally think it is fine for a person to call x whatever he wants as long as he/she is aware of the actual intention. So if anyone wants to calls Beerus Bills they can do that, that is not the problem as long as they are aware that it is not the actual intention and don't claim the opposite. And Birusu stands for Beerus nonetheless.

[KameRule]

I don't think that judging Romaji spellings as "true to the original" is all that relevant tbh, as while the names were spelt like that in Toriyama's original writings, they were only spelt like that because of the limitations of the language itself. He is obviously making specific references to English words with names like Bejita, Torankusu, and Seru, so you're actually missing out on the intended puns if you use the Romaji spellings as opposed to "Vegeta", "Trunks", "Cell" and so on. If he could have done, Toriyama most likely would have just given them the Anglicised spellings/pronunciations in the first place. Putting being "true to the original" over "true to the author's intent" is just silly.

[rereboy]

I presented arguments, as seen in my previous post. Stupid dub names, inconsistent translations, a preference for the names' original pronunciation, and, sure, if you want to include this, a preference for Japanese way of doing thing in general, or "Weaboos," as dbboxkaifan felt it necessary to put out.

Honestly, this should have ended with, "some people like to stick with the original pronunciation of the name, and there's nothing wrong with that." I don't see what the point of this thread is, other than Cure Dragon looking for validation for his mocking someone for using "Bejita."

You presented arguments for it being subjective which is implied by simply not being an objective activity, so no arguments for that were actually necessary, we are in agreement regarding that. But I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the validity of presenting arguments on why a person believes a certain way of doing things is incorrect/wrong (without having to be on a pedestal).

And I believe this is the point of the topic. To discuss it and for people to offer their thoughts and their arguments regarding what they believe is the most correct method and if they believe the concrete method of having the names be just like they are pronounced in japanese is their preferred method or if they think that it is the most correct method.

Honestly, if every topic in this forum was closed after someone says "its subjective, no point in arguing" there wouldn't be much activity at all over here.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Actually, now that I think of it. Kamiccolo IS right. I mean, sure I think Rough Romanization is needlessly silly. But not inherently wrong.

[Kamiccolo9]

I presented arguments, as seen in my previous post. Stupid dub names, inconsistent translations, a preference for the names' original pronunciation, and, sure, if you want to include this, a preference for Japanese way of doing thing in general, or "Weaboos," as dbboxkaifan felt it necessary to put out.

Honestly, this should have ended with, "some people like to stick with the original pronunciation of the name, and there's nothing wrong with that." I don't see what the point of this thread is, other than Cure Dragon looking for validation for his mocking someone for using "Bejita."

And I believe this is the point of the topic. To discuss it and for people to offer their thoughts and their arguments regarding what they believe is the most correct method and if they believe the concrete method of having the names be just like they are pronounced in japanese is their preferred method or if they think that it is the most correct method.

Honestly, if every topic in this forum was closed after someone says "its subjective, no point in arguing" there wouldn't be much activity at all over here.

Discussion is fine. It's when discussion turns into "that's illogical. It's wrong," when referring to purely subjective material that it's no longer discussion; it's beratement. Needlessly arguing over something that's purely down to personal preferance isn't providing discussion. It's just people stating their point of view, with, for the most part, no intention of recognizning the opposing point of view. This isn't even like power level discussions, where part of the discussion comes from whether something is subjective or not.

This is just "sure, I guess it's technically all right, but I don't like it," responded to with "well, I do like it, and here's why..." responded with, "ok, and it's not factually wrong, but I still don't like it." Where does this discussion go from there?

[rereboy]

Because any arguments against it come down to personal preference, which is a pointless thing to argue about. For the most part, nobody is going to change their minds, and, since nobody is factually wrong, why waste the time and effort trying to change somebody's opinion, when that opinion is decided by purely subjective standards?

"Correct" and "incorrect" have no bearing here, since, as you have noted, nobody is factually wrong. This all comes down to personal preference. I tend to side with your reasoning for why not using direct romanizations of names, but there is nothing wrong with anyone doing just that.

Believing that a certain method is (more) correct because its truer to the origin of the word and the intent of the author, for example, is far more that saying that "I like it more this way". Its a perfectly logical and reasonable argument and its not just an argument that "comes down to personal preference" so I disagree with you that that's all there can be regarding this discussion.

Also, the point of discussions is not, inherently, to change anyone's mind (its to express our opinion), nor are non-subjective discussions the only ones worth having. Like I mentioned, if all subjective discussions were shot down because they are subjective, there wouldn't be much activity in the forum.

Discussion is fine. It's when discussion turns into "that's illogical. It's wrong," when referring to purely subjective material that it's no longer discussion; it's beratement. Needlessly arguing over something that's purely down to personal preferance isn't providing discussion. It's just people stating their point of view, with, for the most part, no intention of recognizning the opposing point of view. This isn't even like power level discussions, where part of the discussion comes from whether something is subjective or not.

This is just "sure, I guess it's technically all right, but I don't like it," responded to with "well, I do like it, and here's why..." responded with, "ok, and it's not factually wrong, but I still don't like it." Where does this discussion go from there?

It goes on like any discussion. You present your views on the subject, people comment on it or not, and you respond to them or not, and after that a healthy debate emerges for a time until it ends or the discussion just stops or it degrades into a tug of war of people not admitting anything and apparently trying to "sell" their reasoning.

In short, its pretty much like any other discussion in this forum. I don't see any real difference, honestly.

[Kojiro Sasaki]

But should we treat romanizations as “original”? I think that Vegeta/Bulma/Trunks are the original names, while ベジータ/ブルマ/トランクス are the only way to write them using Japanese characters.
Is “limitation” of the Japanese alphabet crucial in determining the originality of names?

[ImmaDeker]

I just use the Simmons' translated names and stick to those, the rest either feel too weaboo (Torankusu? come on) or cheesy corny crap (FUNimation dubnames).

"Weaboo?" Really, man?

Rejecting an obvious pun for the longer, more Japanese-y-er version is the weeabooest shit ever, yes, because it's denying the intention of the text to sound more like a language you shallowly think is cool.

Which is the only goddamn reason I've ever seen Torankusu used. And I HAVE known people who use that.

[Gaffer Tape]

I agree with Kamiccolo9, and it has nothing to do with "hur hur, I just like it this way." I don't use such literal romanizations myself, but you really can't deny that they are the ONLY direct line to the names that Toriyama actually came up with and wrote, in a language he is fluent in, that native Japanese fans see and use, so you can't say the romanizations are wrong. Any attempt at adaptation, no matter how well-informed to the intentions behind their creation are, technically speaking, a deviation. Do I consider that to be a necessary evil? Yeah, for the most part. But I'd never make fun of someone or invalidate someone for using them. Because they're right. They're correct.

And the comparison to Magellan does not really hold water here (although I found it fascinating in its own right). This is not the case of a person's name being butchered in a different language. Toriyama CREATED these characters. He created the names. "Seru" is not referring to the building blocks of life. It is referring to a green bug monster, and that green bug monster can be called whatever his creator chooses him to be called. Do I extrapolate the meaning from that and call him "Cell" because I know that's the English word Toriyama was trying to approximate? Yeah, I do. But the fact of the matter is, his real name is セル, which, literally speaking, is "Seru."

That said, while I don't do Seru, Torankusu, etc., I do, for the same reason, refer to the savior of the world as Mr. Sah-tan, not Mr. Say-tan. Because, yeah, yeah, it's nice and all that it's an obvious allusion to the ruler of hell. But he's not the ruler of hell. He's just a dude who has a name, and that name is written to be pronounced (and is pronounced) Sah-tan.

[Kid Buu]

I just use the Simmons' translated names and stick to those, the rest either feel too weaboo (Torankusu? come on) or cheesy corny crap (FUNimation dubnames).

It's also actually spelt Weeaboo, not Weaboo.

[ImmaDeker]

That said, while I don't do Seru, Torankusu, etc., I do, for the same reason, refer to the savior of the world as Mr. Sah-tan, not Mr. Say-tan. Because, yeah, yeah, it's nice and all that it's an obvious allusion to the ruler of hell. But he's not the ruler of hell. He's just a dude who has a name, and that name is written to be pronounced (and is pronounced) Sah-tan.

By the same token, I'd make the argument that these two conflicting notions:

it's an obvious allusion to the ruler of hell.

He's just a dude who has a name,

Technically support your argument, but for all the wrong reasons. If these names are honest to God so arbitrary that you can make that distinction ("these are obviously allusions, but have no thematic or humorous merit warranting a need for their accuracy vis a vis those allusions"), then there's no real reason to have a consistency of naming at all. Using Sah-tan but not Torankusu is being superfluous.

Which I suppose fits analysis of Dragonball, but it's still hypocritical. Trunks isn't a pair of swimming shorts either, but his name is meant to evoke swimming shorts based on the context of his family, just like Satan is clearly meant to allude to the devil along Videl. Explain to me why I shouldn't just call him Kyle Reese if these names are so superfluous they shouldn't be aligned and adapted to the intent of the context of their allusions and puns, even though both names exist in a context where there's a consistent reference. The idea of making exceptions seems wrong to me.

I suppose there's an argument to be made that Satan's name plays by different rules if you consider Videl is an anagram, but it seems wrong to acknowledge the allusion it's making and then disregard it completely, but still find an insistence in referring to the last survivor of a dying world as a pair of swimming shorts.

There's such a thing as an original source text referencing something shoddily or roughly that, by virtue of being adapted into the language it's borrowing from, CAN be corrected once adapted and introduced to that language. But your open admittance of what something is SUPPOSED to be and then saying "Yeah, but I wanna say it this way, original intention be damned" basically is a tell that it doesn't...really matter?

And I guess it doesn't. But the distinction between what names you decide to use or don't use strikes me as super arbitrary. Maybe arbitrary isn't WRONG, but that's how it comes off.

[Cure Dragon 255]

VIDEL!

Thank god you mentioned her!

See, her name is supposed to be an anagram of "Devil". Doesnt calling her Bideru defeat this purpose? Unless you say its an anagram of Debiru.

[Gaffer Tape]

It's not hypocritical at all, and I find it funny you use Videl as an example, when I was very much planning to use her as an example of my own. Yeah, her name is an allusion to the word devil. Most people say it's an anagram of the word devil. But it's actually not. Japan's Romanized approximation of devil is debiru. Videl's name is biideru with an extended "ee" sound at the beginning. Toriyama extended the initial vowel sound. In other words, it's not the same as the word. So, no, matching the intended meaning is not always the order of the day.

I see them as different because, for me, pronunciation is key. And in a series where most characters' names are written with a phonetic writing system, that seems logical. I say what I read and hear. The reason I go with Cell, Trunks, Vegeta, Piccolo, Blooma is because my ear can hear those in Seru, Torankusu, Bejiita, Pikkoro, Buruma. Sah-tan and Say-tan are completely different vowel sounds, and it's not as if Say-tan can't be replicated with Japanese phonology. But it wasn't. His name is pronounced Sah-tan. That's what I hear, and it's impossible for me to extrapolate such a departure from that, any more than I can extrapolate Sei-yan from Saiya-jin. Any more than I can meet a girl named Nina who pronounces her name "Nine-uh" and tell her it's supposed to be "Neen-uh."

[Cure Dragon 255]

In this context, "making sense" is subjective. Some people prefer to stick as close to the original pronunciation as possible. I don't see why we should berate them for that. There's nothing wrong with it, so whatevs.

There's nothing factually wrong about a lot of things since most things have a varying degree of subjectivity. However, I still fail to see why someone can't, using logic and reason, present arguments regarding a certain way of doing things being incorrect/wrong, without it implying that that person is on a pedestal.

Just because something has a degree of subjectivity to it, it doesn't mean that what one person says about it can't be contested by another using valid arguments.

Something different from that is someone being a "dick" about it. But merely arguing that its incorrect/wrong while providing logical and logical arguments is not being a "dick".

I presented arguments, as seen in my previous post. Stupid dub names, inconsistent translations, a preference for the names' original pronunciation, and, sure, if you want to include this, a preference for Japanese way of doing thing in general, or "Weaboos," as dbboxkaifan felt it necessary to put out.

Honestly, this should have ended with, "some people like to stick with the original pronunciation of the name, and there's nothing wrong with that." I don't see what the point of this thread is, other than Cure Dragon looking for validation for his mocking someone for using "Bejita."

I Freaking told you I wasnt mocking him for using Bejita. I mocked him for his hipocrisy. And I even admitted you were right later!

[DBZfan29]

Is it too late to chime in on this discussion?

I think using spellings such as "Torankusu," "Seru," or IDK, calling them the "Doragon Booru" shouldn't really be a thing, unless you are actually writing in Japanese. Much like with Daizex's old page on the spellings of the evil dragons, I think we should stick with what they are actually referring to to begin with. Isn't that "true to the original?" I tend to stick with what Kanzenshuu uses, but it just gets confusing when I'm speaking with another American fan about the "Saiyans"/"Seiyins" (that's pronunciation, but I had to bring it up… you can't imagine how much "Just Saiyan" gets on my nerves) or Kuririn (even though Krillin is just so much easier to say). I remember the American Dragon Boxes using "Yamucha," which always bugged me because of how the "u" is a weak vowel. Anyway, I'll just end with this—I use the "sort" feature on iTunes to better organize my Japanese music, so "ROMANTIKKU Ageru Yo" would be sorted as "ROMANCE Ageru Yo." I think it just makes everything easier if you stick with the origin word and its language.

On another note, like Meri once said, WTF is a Bulma?

[Cure Dragon 255]

Kuririn is actually okay, because the intent of Toriyama is to mix "Kuri(Chesnut)" and Lin(Shaolin)

[ImmaDeker]

It's not hypocritical at all, and I find it funny you use Videl as an example, when I was very much planning to use her as an example of my own. Yeah, her name is an allusion to the word devil. Most people say it's an anagram of the word devil. But it's actually not. Japan's Romanized approximation of devil is debiru. Videl's name is biideru with an extended "ee" sound at the beginning. Toriyama extended the initial vowel sound. In other words, it's not the same as the word. So, no, matching the intended meaning is not always the order of the day.

That I didn't know. My opinion doesn't change per se, but that's interesting. Thank you for informing.

I see them as different because, for me, pronunciation is key. And in a series where most characters' names are written with a phonetic writing system, that seems logical. I say what I read and hear. The reason I go with Cell, Trunks, Vegeta, Piccolo, Blooma is because my ear can hear those in Seru, Torankusu, Bejiita, Pikkoro, Buruma. Sah-tan and Say-tan are completely different vowel sounds, and it's not as if Say-tan can't be replicated with Japanese phonology. But it wasn't. His name is pronounced Sah-tan. That's what I hear, and it's impossible for me to extrapolate such a departure from that, any more than I can extrapolate Sei-yan from Saiya-jin. Any more than I can meet a girl named Nina who pronounces her name "Nine-uh" and tell her it's supposed to be "Neen-uh."

I take intent of meaning or presented meaning over pronunciation, personally. I feel like if a reference is clearly there, it seems silly to shy away from it, superfluous as DB's references may be. It's entirely possible Toriyama executed something wrong while still showing that existence of a pun, reference, etc. I mean, the guy can't exactly keep his own details straight, so it's entirely possible that some of these can be half assed but still exist.

Then again, I at least appreciate there's an actual throughline of context in your assessment. Like before, I can't say you're WRONG, but I dunno if your standard is the one that makes the most sense to me. But you can at least explain it, so you get that.

(The real life example is bunk though, because I take fictional names and real names, even if they're identical, as different situations.)